This week’s local news scare: porn trolls are coming for you

Tucson station reports on attempt to extort $3,500 from a local nail salon owner.

Few news outlets are further behind the curve than nightly broadcasts on local television. So when copyright trolling becomes fodder for outraged evening news coverage, it's a sign the backlash against the practice has truly gone mainstream.

The activist site Fight Copyright Trolls points to a pair of news segments that were broadcast on KGUN 9 in Tucson, AZ. The first features Jenny Phan, a young mother of two and Tucson nail salon owner who received a threatening letter from an attorney representing the pornographic movie producers Elegant Angel Productions. The movie Phan stands accused of pirating has a title "we can't repeat on TV."

Phan denies downloading the movie. But the porn company's lawyer argues that it doesn't matter. He says Phan is responsible for material downloaded using her connection whether or not she was the one who actually downloaded it.

Channel 9 interviewed an EFF attorney who described such threats as "very scary." As reporter Tammy Vo puts it, "even if defendants like Jenny decide to face the embarrassment of fighting porn piracy charges, it'll cost more to get an attorney than it would to fork over the $3500 to make the case go away."

"I just feel mad," Phan said. "You know, we work hard for our money." The news anchor described the incident as "outrageous."

In a follow-up segment the next night, Vo interviewed a computer security expert who said it would be "nearly impossible" to prove that Phan was responsible for sharing the video. The expert noted "millions of machines" have been turned into zombies by trojans.

The porn trolling problem is familiar to longtime Ars readers; we've been covering the topic since 2010. But now such litigation has become so common, and so obviously extortionate, that it is drawing attention from the most mainstream of media outlets. This can only add to the hostile climate copyright trolls are already facing in the courtroom.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

The hostile environment in the court room is just a cost of doing business for these cretins. They know they can use the threat of legal action for extortion and will collect plenty of lucre from those who cave rather than fight.

Until these scum start doing hard time, all other disincentives are just a cost of doing business.

Note that the troll lawyers in this case are Carroll Law Firm from Arizona. This firm is listed as a partner of Copyright Enforcement Group, one of the major troll conglomerates, Ira Siegel's creation. Ars covered various events related to this swarm of trolls.

While undoubtedly a stereotypical view on my part, after seeing the exceptional amount of media piracy that my SE Asian friends and coworkers participate in, the idea that someone in her family had downloaded this seems more likely than not to me.

It's amazing that the local news outlets actually have the right idea for what's actually going on, while the one time mama CNN covered it, they damn near portrayed the lawyers as white knights of copyright. The animals in the CNN comments section were all too eager to go along with it as well, which certainly didn't help any.

Too bad the EFF didn't have the decency to tell her to simply deny she did it, thus forcing the Trolls to actually have to file against her, which they are 99% unlikely to do. These Trolls are not willing to fight in court, it costs too much for their trolling scam, and they expect to lose against any but the most retarded defendant, because simple denial is adequate for a defense given the precedents already in place against "liability for your internet connection". They simply have no evidence and they know it, so they give up.

It seems like the only way to protect against something like this (other than paying the extortion fee) would be for someone who has a lot of money to take pity on the victim and pay for the legal defense (or a lawyer to do the work for free). Either that or a group of people could set up some kind of charitable foundation that victims could apply for the support of. Given how long this sort of thing has been going on I imagine that either such an organization already exists or is illegal/impractical for some reason.

EDIT: I would donate money to such an organization. Anyone got any info?

It seems like the only way to protect against something like this (other than paying the extortion fee) would be for someone who has a lot of money to take pity on the victim and pay for the legal defense (or a lawyer to do the work for free).

Too bad the EFF didn't have the decency to tell her to simply deny she did it, thus forcing the Trolls to actually have to file against her, which they are 99% unlikely to do. These Trolls are not willing to fight in court, it costs too much for their trolling scam, and they expect to lose against any but the most retarded defendant, because simple denial is adequate for a defense given the precedents already in place against "liability for your internet connection". They simply have no evidence and they know it, so they give up.

Too bad the EFF didn't have the decency to tell her to simply deny she did it, thus forcing the Trolls to actually have to file against her, which they are 99% unlikely to do. These Trolls are not willing to fight in court, it costs too much for their trolling scam, and they expect to lose against any but the most retarded defendant, because simple denial is adequate for a defense given the precedents already in place against "liability for your internet connection". They simply have no evidence and they know it, so they give up.

Hopefully this combined with the defeat of SOPA/PIPA is the moment where we look back to the Copyright/IP wave finally breaking and receding back to pit it came from. For laws that were codified to advance society they certainly don't seem to be performing that function any more. Instead it's just breeding anti-competitive behavior in the market place, creating artificial entries to barrier, and being used to literally extort money from consumers when the content producers feel their profits aren't high enough...

In my mind this has to stop. It's literally going to choke all innovation and turn the US into more of a intellectual backwater. So rather than being perpetually comoditized, it's time for people to fight back.

It seems like the only way to protect against something like this (other than paying the extortion fee) would be for someone who has a lot of money to take pity on the victim and pay for the legal defense (or a lawyer to do the work for free). Either that or a group of people could set up some kind of charitable foundation that victims could apply for the support of. Given how long this sort of thing has been going on I imagine that either such an organization already exists or is illegal/impractical for some reason.

EDIT: I would donate money to such an organization. Anyone got any info?

EFF.org is one of the main groups that gets involved in such cases, although they tend to favor initial precedent setting cases rather than followup cases as I understand it.

Patent Trolling is when some good-for-nothing company that owns patents hides under a bridge of innovation, doing nothing, then jumps out to demand a toll when someone attempts to cross said bridge in the process of making something.

While trying to coerce money out of John & Jane Does when they download something to make the potential for litigation go away is, well, legalized extortion, I really don't see that as trolling since someone did deliberately commit copyright infringement, and it's well within the owner's rights to pursue the matter. Now whether or not the penalties for copyright infringement are ludicrous is a different issue, but content producers really aren't trolls for protecting their interests.

That Phan has an "expert" who babbles about a botnet full of zombie computers really doesn't help matters much. If her computer downloaded someone's copyrighted work, it's still her responsibility as the operator of that computer. More likely, there aren't bots involved, just a wide-open WiFi hotspot, and If someone downloaded copyrighted work over her unsecured network connection, as the operator of the network, she's responsible for that too.

I just can't say I have any sympathy for willful copyright infringers, nor folks who allow their computers to become malware-ridden, nor those who open up their networks to anonymous criminals & pedophiles to enable them to easier cover their tracks.

Patent Trolling is when some good-for-nothing company that owns patents hides under a bridge of innovation, doing nothing, then jumps out to demand a toll when someone attempts to cross said bridge in the process of making something.

While trying to coerce money out of John & Jane Does when they download something to make the potential for litigation go away is, well, legalized extortion, I really don't see that as trolling since someone did deliberately commit copyright infringement, and it's well within the owner's rights to pursue the matter. Now whether or not the penalties for copyright infringement are ludicrous is a different issue, but content producers really aren't trolls for protecting their interests.

That Phan has an "expert" who babbles about a botnet full of zombie computers really doesn't help matters much. If her computer downloaded someone's copyrighted work, it's still her responsibility as the operator of that computer. More likely, there aren't bots involved, just a wide-open WiFi hotspot, and If someone downloaded copyrighted work over her unsecured network connection, as the operator of the network, she's responsible for that too.

I just can't say I have any sympathy for willful copyright infringers, nor folks who allow their computers to become malware-ridden, nor those who open up their networks to anonymous criminals & pedophiles to enable them to easier cover their tracks.

The news report mentions that she had her network locked down. But even if she wasn't, there's no law holding people responsible for the actions of those who use their networks. Is a library or coffee shop responsible if someone commits copyright infringement on their open networks?

As for the label "copyright troll," these firms have made it crystal clear by their behavior that they're not looking to actually litigate these cases. Rather, the idea is to force people to pony up cash because the amount their asking for is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer. Crucially, this is a tactic that works equally well whether the target is innocent or guilty. Copyright holders are entitled to enforce their rights, but the rest of us are justifiably outraged when they abuse the legal system to extract money from the guilty and the innocent alike.

Patent Trolling is when some good-for-nothing company that owns patents hides under a bridge of innovation, doing nothing, then jumps out to demand a toll when someone attempts to cross said bridge in the process of making something.

While trying to coerce money out of John & Jane Does when they download something to make the potential for litigation go away is, well, legalized extortion, I really don't see that as trolling since someone did deliberately commit copyright infringement, and it's well within the owner's rights to pursue the matter.

Perhaps, but against a person, not an IP.

If someone steals your car (uses your open router), you are not held responsible for any crimes they commit, even though you remain the registered owner of the car.

Quote:

Now whether or not the penalties for copyright infringement are ludicrous is a different issue, but content producers really aren't trolls for protecting their interests.

My question is did they contact said law firm and request their services? Or was it the other way round?

Quote:

That Phan has an "expert" who babbles about a botnet full of zombie computers really doesn't help matters much. If her computer downloaded someone's copyrighted work, it's still her responsibility as the operator of that computer.

Can you point me to the relevant case law?

Quote:

More likely, there aren't bots involved, just a wide-open WiFi hotspot, and If someone downloaded copyrighted work over her unsecured network connection, as the operator of the network, she's responsible for that too.

Same for this one.

Quote:

I just can't say I have any sympathy for willful copyright infringers, nor folks who allow their computers to become malware-ridden, nor those who open up their networks to anonymous criminals & pedophiles to enable them to easier cover their tracks.

Even WPA2 can be cracked, and there are exploits that allow hackers to take control of your computer just by loading their webpage. How many zero-day exploits are there? I don't know, but I do know they exist. Microsoft is being good enough to patch them quickly and revoke certificates that are compromised, but things ain't secure yet. You seem to have no concept of innocence in this regard, which is interesting as most posters I've read seem to think that the innocent should not be punished.

Patent Trolling is when some good-for-nothing company that owns patents hides under a bridge of innovation, doing nothing, then jumps out to demand a toll when someone attempts to cross said bridge in the process of making something.

While trying to coerce money out of John & Jane Does when they download something to make the potential for litigation go away is, well, legalized extortion, I really don't see that as trolling since someone did deliberately commit copyright infringement, and it's well within the owner's rights to pursue the matter. Now whether or not the penalties for copyright infringement are ludicrous is a different issue, but content producers really aren't trolls for protecting their interests.

That Phan has an "expert" who babbles about a botnet full of zombie computers really doesn't help matters much. If her computer downloaded someone's copyrighted work, it's still her responsibility as the operator of that computer. More likely, there aren't bots involved, just a wide-open WiFi hotspot, and If someone downloaded copyrighted work over her unsecured network connection, as the operator of the network, she's responsible for that too.

I just can't say I have any sympathy for willful copyright infringers, nor folks who allow their computers to become malware-ridden, nor those who open up their networks to anonymous criminals & pedophiles to enable them to easier cover their tracks.

Hmm you must be new here. #pinktag.

Copyright trolling is the act of sending out a series of settlement letters alleging copyright infringement after minimal-to-no investigation, whereby the plaintiff intends to pressure, through embarrassment, harassment, or coercion, the defendant into settling. The law firm then shares in the proceeds of the settlement in question on a contingency basis. It's trolling because the firm or the copyright holder has no intention of taking any of the individuals to court; they are instead fishing for settlement fees, capitalizing on the ever-increasing expense of litigation defense forcing defendants' hands. Easy settlement money weighed against the distinct lack of financial disincentives means that firms will engage in this strategy as a business model. There is no justice or recompense occurring here.

Furthermore, copyright infringement does require active participation if not mens rea on a civil level. If someone steals my car and uses it in a bank robbery, generally speaking I am not liable for the crime. If I was exceptionally negligent, there may be a claim, but the average computer user does not know how to safeguard their PCs from botnets. If she was not the one to download the work, and there are no laws establishing vicarious liability against her for the actions of anyone using her computer or network [of which there are some emerging], then she would not be liable for copyright infringement, as she was not the one copying the work.

In a follow-up segment the next night, Vo interviewed a computer security expert who said it would be "nearly impossible" to prove that Phan was responsible for sharing the video. The expert noted "millions of machines" have been turned into zombies by trojans.

Is that what trojans do? Download copyrighted content?

AnonymousRich wrote:

Even WPA2 can be cracked, and there are exploits that allow hackers to take control of your computer just by loading their webpage.

Dictionary attacks and rainbow tables. The lesson is to use what security one does have smartly.

In a follow-up segment the next night, Vo interviewed a computer security expert who said it would be "nearly impossible" to prove that Phan was responsible for sharing the video. The expert noted "millions of machines" have been turned into zombies by trojans.

Is that what trojans do? Download copyrighted content?

While it's true that you typically only hear about botnets WRT DoS attacks, once a machine becomes a 'bot' it will do whatever the bot owner wants it to do. This trojan is only the vector for infection.

And now that I think of it, would the trojan protect a zombie? They may be undead but they still have cells that can become infected, err, maybe.

In a follow-up segment the next night, Vo interviewed a computer security expert who said it would be "nearly impossible" to prove that Phan was responsible for sharing the video. The expert noted "millions of machines" have been turned into zombies by trojans.

Is that what trojans do? Download copyrighted content?

Of course not. Usually when this is brought up it's because they're trying to create reasonable doubt.

The reality is, though, that if someone creating a bot-net wanted to download (or offer) the unabridged works of Sasha Grey, there's much easier ways of going about it (namely by not going through the hassle of creating a bot-net).

Patent Trolling is when some good-for-nothing company that owns patents hides under a bridge of innovation, doing nothing, then jumps out to demand a toll when someone attempts to cross said bridge in the process of making something.

First: Copyright =/= Patent. Second: Copyright Troll is already a well established term.

You're new here, or you'd know the last several years have been filled with shady lawyers attempting to extort money from all kinds of people based on nothing more than an IP address. As reported here and in previous articles, courts are getting increasingly skeptical when these cases do manage to make it to them because IP addresses can be spoofed (faked) so that an infringer does not even need to access your network.

This isn't about enforcement. This is about people who send letters threatening to sue for massive amounts unless you pay them a much smaller amount and making damn well sure the titles they're "enforcing" are porn only, and thus something you might want to hide from your friends and family.

If it were legit enforcement, there'd probably be much more of these cases from mainstream titles and not from porn.

And yet if you leave a gun in easy reach of a child and they shoot someone, you will likely face charges.

You'll also face charges in many jurisdictions if you leave kids unattended in a car and they start it and run into a canal and one of the kids dies. Real case that happened in Orange county fl a couple of years ago.

If someone steals your car (uses your open router), you are not held responsible for any crimes they commit, even though you remain the registered owner of the car.

And yet if you leave a gun in easy reach of a child and they shoot someone, you will likely face charges.

Is a copyright violation comparable to a felony? Is a network connection a weapon capable of serious physical injury or death?

Quote:

Expect it to be a two-step process by the IP organizations:

1. Fight for legislation to make locking down your wifi a responsibility of the network owner.2. Sue for negligent loss caused by failing to do (1).

The poster 'karo' is claiming that this is the case now.

The situation in the first quote was merely a set up for the premise of the 2nd quote, which would be a situation where ownership would imply responsibility for unlawful behavior. You are quite right though -- outside of its use as a example of ownership implying responsibility, there is no similarity between a 3 year old shooting their play partner with an easily accessible gun and a drive-by bit torrent access.

If it becomes a law that you're responsible for protecting your computer against being hacked against your knowledge, and that any activities that occur on your computer is therefore your responsibility, then I imagine a good deal of the government, fbi, law enforcement and judges will soon be repealing that act.

They would be committing suicide if they did, because every hacker and script kiddie will go after them, and off to prison they go.

I am seeing a new book series, "Idiots Guide to Fighting Copyright Trolls". It would just be a collection of generically worded filings for summary judgement and how to respond to the letters. Once enough people actually can fight these copyright trolls without having to spend a small fortune in legal fees, the practice will end. It has been shown most judges will toss these cases if the proper filings are filled out and the correct wording is used.

If it becomes a law that you're responsible for protecting your computer against being hacked against your knowledge, and that any activities that occur on your computer is therefore your responsibility, then I imagine a good deal of the government, fbi, law enforcement and judges will soon be repealing that act.

They would be committing suicide if they did, because every hacker and script kiddie will go after them, and off to prison they go.

Naaa, judges are held to a lower standard, the bar is literally on the floor.